Anderson v. State
155 A.3d 832
Del.2017Background
- Lester F. Anderson was convicted by a Superior Court jury of first‑degree murder in 1992 and sentenced to life imprisonment; this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Anderson filed multiple postconviction motions over the years; this Court denied his fourth Rule 61 motion in 2013.
- In August 2016 Anderson filed a "motion for review," which the Superior Court treated as a Rule 35 motion for sentence reduction and denied it; Anderson appealed.
- Anderson argued the trial court deprived him of the right to call an expert to support his self‑defense claim and also argued the court should have given a deadly‑weapon jury instruction.
- The Superior Court held it lacked authority under Rule 35 to reduce a mandatory life sentence and treated claims challenging the conviction as subject to Rule 61 procedural bars; the Supreme Court granted the State’s motion to affirm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anderson was denied his right to call an expert to support self‑defense | State: the claim is barred by Rule 61 procedural rules and was previously litigated | Anderson: he was improperly prevented from calling an expert at trial to support self‑defense | Court: claim challenges conviction and is subject to Rule 61; Anderson failed to overcome procedural bars; claim previously rejected on direct appeal |
| Whether the Superior Court could reduce Anderson’s mandatory life sentence under Rule 35 | State: Rule 35 does not permit reduction of a mandatory portion of a sentence | Anderson: sought sentence reduction via his motion for review | Court: Superior Court correctly denied relief—cannot reduce mandatory life sentence under Rule 35 |
| Whether the court erred by not instructing the jury on deadly‑weapon issues | State: claim not raised below and is forfeited | Anderson: trial court should have given a deadly‑weapon instruction | Court: claim was not raised in the Superior Court and will not be considered for the first time on appeal |
| Whether the 2016 motion warranted further review despite prior denials and repetitiveness | State: motion is untimely/repetitive and appeal is without merit; judicial resources should not be expended | Anderson: sought additional review of his case | Court: affirmed denial; warned against untimely and repetitive Rule 61 filings and granted State’s motion to affirm |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sturgis, 947 A.2d 1087 (Del. 2008) (Superior Court cannot reduce mandatory portion of a sentence under Rule 35)